For Clarity's Sake, Please Don't Say “Licensed under GNU GPL 2” (2017)

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/identify-licenses-clearly.html

by dannymemotivo • 7 years ago

36 42 7 years ago

gnu.org

vgetr• 7 years ago

I wonder if perhaps RMS is annoyed by the lack of GPL v3 adoption.

saltyshake• 7 years ago

GPL v3 is toxic. It forces companies to hand out their private certificates. Huge no-no for any hardware manufacturer.

ghettoimp• 7 years ago

Is there an example of a hardware company that has been forced to hand out a private certificate because of the GPL v3?

detaro• 7 years ago

No it doesn't. It forces companies to do that, or provide an update path that does not require their private certificates.

ryukafalz4• 7 years ago

I mean, only if control of that private certificate is required to run code on the device. I'm sad to live in a world where allowing people to run the software of their own choice on their own computers is considered a "huge no-no."

Reelin• 7 years ago

GPL v3 is toxic.

DRM is toxic.

Thorrez• 7 years ago

Wouldn't it be better to just have a physical switch on the device to disable certificate checking?

wbl2• 7 years ago

I remember a world where when I bought something it was mine to do what I saw fit with.

StudentStuff• 7 years ago

I would be annoyed at the lack of uptake if I were RMS, the GPLv3 is designed to make sure the user has the four essential freedoms, while Apple and Android OEMs (except those permitting bootloader unlocking) are all too happy to trample freedom zero: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Without the ability to run software as we see fit, we are constrained to what these vendors permit us to do on our own devices.

If you like this constraint, GPLv2 and lesser licenses are for you, otherwise a license like GPLv3 is advisable to ensure your users aren't trapped with an outdated, vulnerable version of your software that their OEM refuses to update.

dang• 7 years ago

Url changed from https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/rms-article-for-claritys-sake-..., which points to this.

xgulfie• 7 years ago

I really do not trust GNU enough to say "or later". There's no reason to think the next GPL's terms will be what I want.

Putting "or later" at the end licenses your software under unknown terms. It could become CC0.

ryukafalz4• 7 years ago

Well, yeah; it depends on how closely the FSF's goals align with your own. Personally, mine are very close to the FSF's, so I'm comfortable releasing code under GPL v3 or later. Yours may not be.

It's worth noting however that it's much easier to go from "v3 or later" to "v3 only" than the other way around.

OJFord• 7 years ago

It's worth noting however that it's much easier to go from "v3 or later" to "v3 only" than the other way around.

Why so? I always wondered why say 'or later' rather than just adopt v4 (et al.) as dual (...) licences as and when, so I can believe it, I just don't understand it.

smitty1e• 7 years ago

I think RMS's course is steady.

How well his ideas will survive him remains to be seen.

The more Orwellian Big Tech gets, the happier I am to be an FSF member.

robocat• 7 years ago

As a consequence, code released under GPL version 2 only can't be merged with code released under GPL version 3 only.

So:

1. GPL3 introduced an incompatible, breaking change, knowing there was important GPL2 only code.

2. GPL3 did not include any way to grandfather in existing GPL2 code.

Being idealistic is great, but sometimes it has ugly consequences.

phkahler• 7 years ago

You can't grandfather in code under a different license. The recommendation when GPLv2 was published was to include the "or any future version" to allow relicensing within the same series of licenses. A lot of people didnt do that, some for lack of understanding and some fully aware.

klyrs2• 7 years ago

This is dishonest. They're implying that

"Licensed under GPL 2.0"

Is ambiguous about whether later versions are applicable. They're not. Only GPL 2.0 applies because that's the listed license.

javagram2• 7 years ago

The text of the GPL 2.0 states

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

The license itself admits that it may cover multiple versions. Being clear, as the FSF is recommending on this page, seems like the best choice to avoid confusion for your end users.

(in particular, this page seems to be about deprecating the existing ambiguous SPDX license indicators and replacing them with ones that have clear 'only' or 'later' suffixes. This seems like a good thing.)

klyrs2• 7 years ago

> If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option...
The license itself admits that it may cover multiple versions.

... along with the conditions under which this expansive licensing applies. While it's good to be clear, it's not respectful of author's wishes to presume a later license when they didn't explicitly allow that. The article suggests that this case is ambiguous, when it is absolutely not and I find that to be irresponsible

For Clarity's Sake, Please Don't Say “Licensed under GNU GPL 2” (2017)

Related Stories